Alex John-Henryhttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com
Free to thinkTue, 26 Sep 2017 21:34:04 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngAlex John-Henryhttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com
The wealthy leecheshttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-wealthy-leeches/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-wealthy-leeches/#respondFri, 08 Apr 2016 08:52:46 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=136More The wealthy leeches]]>The ‘Panama Papers’ leak has revealed some very interesting and juicy stories. From politicians’ undeclared offshore trusts, to a potential global network of money laundering and tax avoidance. But there is also a more mundane story we would do well to consider. One that doesn’t require any leaked information – the morally bankrupt practises of the super wealthy, which are routine all over the world.

By in large, the services that Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca provide are entirely legal. Many other firms around the world, including in New Zealand, provide similar services.

One of the primary services Mossack Fonseca provides is, essentially, to help clients circumvent their local tax regulations. Mossack Fonseca, and firms like them, assists the super-rich to structure their wealth and assets to minimise their tax and regulatory obligations. This is all very common practice.

The reason that these firms exist is due in part to the complexity of tax and trust law. Complexity leads to ambiguity, exceptions and loopholes. Clever lawyers and accountants study for years to gain experience in exploiting these loopholes. For a significant fee, the rich employ these shrewd operators to structure and obscure their substantial assets. This allows people – already wealthier than any of us ordinary plebs could ever imagine – to use their wealth to minimise tax liability and maximise gains.

It is only the super wealthy who actually have any reason for using these tax avoidance services (not to mention they alone can afford the exorbitant hourly rates). The rest of us wage slaves have no such option – we all pay our fair share of income tax, usually automatically. Any meagre investments we can scrape together, after expenses, do not end up obscured in offshore accounts or buried in complex trust systems.

This should not be interpreted as an attack on rich people. Good for you if you’ve made a lot of money. Everyone should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labour, intelligence or simple plain luck.

However, it is morally disgraceful that any wealthy person would utilise legal loopholes and offshore accounts for the sole purpose of avoiding paying tax. How obscenely greedy and ethically bankrupt you must be to go to such great lengths just to cling on to a little more of your fortune. Do you really need those extra cents on the dollar? Is your life going to be dramatically affected if you cop your full tax liability?

Our law enforcement agencies put great resource into targeting welfare fraud. And beneficiaries are recurring scapegoats for politicians come election time. However, welfare fraud and the meagre weekly payments made to beneficiaries are minuscule amounts compared to the tax evasion figures the wealthy get away with every year.

I wonder if these super rich tax dodgers ever reflect on their publically funded education, or the taxpayer-funded infrastructure they use to operate their businesses. I wonder if they recognise their hypocrisy as they bleat on about entitled welfare dependents – while they feverishly hide their assets from taxman. Assets that are often built on the back of taxpayer funded government subsidies for their businesses and investments. Businesses and investments that have benefited from taxpayer funded politicians and officials lobbying on their behalf to gain access into overseas markets. Who was the welfare dependent again?

Imagine if all these wealthy people stopped trying to exploit tax loopholes and took the simple route of paying their full tax obligation, without trying to obscure assets in trusts. How many frontline public services would benefit from all that extra tax take?

In New Zealand, we’ve had it ingrained in us to detest bludgers and free riders. The biggest bludgers in our society are those members of the super-rich who, in their mist of greed, ignore their moral duty to pay back their full tax obligation.

ISIS’s operatives are capable, determined, and fanatically believe in their purpose. They are equally certain in the morality of their actions, as they are convinced that paradise follows their death. They are willing to kill anyone to achieve their goals.

A chilling blend of competence, delusion and profound wickedness. A band of committed psychopaths.

In the aftermath of the Brussels attacks, Europeans are once again reflecting on whether these kinds of attacks are the new normal. Doubts about security are increasing; people begin to fear daily life. Who will be the next target? This is the lingering terror of terrorism.

There are two natural reactions that are difficult to resist in the wake of terror attacks. Firstly, a strong desire to lash out. The easy targets of immediate anger are ordinary Muslims living in local communities.

The second reaction is a newfound willingness to trade civil liberties for the comfort of security. The desire for safety sees people ready to surrender freedoms they would ordinarily cherish. Societies become willing to listen to political strongmen whose blistering rhetoric makes the terrified feel safe.

Giving in to either of these instincts is to succumb to the terrorist’s goals. They want to disrupt the West’s way of life. They want enmity between the West and Islam. They want war.

However, inaction is certainly no solution – as political and security failures in Europe demonstrate. The battle with ISIS, and wider Jihadism, is both a security issue and a struggle of conflicting ideas. Effective security is necessary in the short term, but this war can only be won if the enemy’s underlying ideology is confronted and defeated.

Taking the low road of targeting ordinary Muslims obscures a focused response to the real problem, which is Islamism. Not Islam, but Islamism.

Islam is a religion. Like any religion its adherents are not homogenous. They have multiple perspectives, and different interpretations of their religious text. Some will be liberal, some fundamentalist.

Islamism is a theocratic ideology seeking to impose any given interpretation of Islam over society. Islamists may be political, or they may be violent (or both). Both forms of Islamism are a threat to secularism.

Jihadism is the use of force to spread Islamism.

These distinctions are important. To know someone is a Muslim is to know that they follow an interpretation of Islam (of which there are many), nothing else. This does not reveal much of anything about the individual or their views on an ideal society. Just as knowing someone is a Christian does not tell us whether that person is a community minded Salvo, or a Westboro Baptist nutcase.

Islamism, and its violent advocate Jihadism, is the antithesis to western liberal values. It is important to remember that ordinary Muslims are paying the heaviest price at the hands of Islamists and Jihadists. As frequent violent attacks in Muslim majority countries attest.

It is also necessary to acknowledge that Islamists and Jihadist groups come from, and blend within, Islamic communities. They sustain themselves by, predominately, recruiting from these populations.

It is entirely inaccurate to say ISIS and other jihadist groups have nothing to do with Islam. As their name and ideology reveals, Islam clearly has something to do with ISIS. Not everything, but something.

Muslim communities cannot ignore this fact, and neither can world leaders. However, the way forward is not to isolate Muslim communities; it is to include them in the dialogue.

Combatting the ideology of Islamism and Jihadism requires a whole-of-community effort. And it is influential moderate and liberal Muslims who are best placed to counter the Islamist narrative. They will have the greatest chance of influencing the minds of their coreligionists away from extremism and theocracy.

If Muslims want to integrate successfully into Western societies they must embrace secularism (and of course many already do). And the wider community must support Muslims who take great personal risk to encourage religious reform and counter extremist narratives. The Quilliam Foundation is a good example of such an organisation.

Likewise, leaders need to be upfront about the problem of Islamism. A solution to Islamic inspired terrorism will never be found if the root cause is not acknowledged. It is important that societies openly, and rationally, engage in difficult conversations around religion and its role in promoting extremism and illiberalism.

To be silent on these issues is to cede that conversation space to demagogues and bigots. The Donald Trumps of this world. The type of reckless leaders who make no distinction between Islam, Islamism and Jihadism, and who would restrict civil liberties to impose their own form of authoritarianism, under the guise of ‘security’.

There is no easy resolution to extremism, but a good start would be talking honestly and sensibly about the root causes. These discussions need to be frank, but they also need to be inclusive.

]]>https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/confronting-islamism/feed/0-Freedom_go_to_hell-alexjhpostRoses are red, journalism is deadhttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/roses-are-red-journalism-is-dead/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/roses-are-red-journalism-is-dead/#respondMon, 21 Mar 2016 06:20:48 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=93More Roses are red, journalism is dead]]>For only the second time in New Zealand’s history, the country is grappling with uniquely complex moral and philosophical issues. The debates are earnest. The stakes are just as important as last time.

As you are no doubt aware, March 7 ushered in The Bachelor, season two. At its core, this momentous event explores questions of freedom, chivalry, feminism, love, life, the human condition and style.

We are lucky in New Zealand – our two leading online news agencies engage in responsible journalism. They provide us wall-to-wall coverage.

In past dark-days, important celebrity news was stuck deep in the entertainment section. TV show analysis wasn’t even a thing. Horrifyingly, there was once an era where a rose ceremony wouldn’t have been considered newsworthy at all.

Even in recent history, there was probably a time (thankfully I can’t remember it, but I’m sure there was) where you’d have to click at least twice on a news website before you could get to the really edifying stories. The ones revolving around the latest enthralling Twitter spat.

But these days, well, thankfully we are all covered. Even those of us who, regrettably, cannot watch the Bachelor – we don’t miss out. Not when there is a glut of quality Bachelor stories and analysis plastered on the front page – right where all the truly important news in this world belongs.

Speaking of the world. A couple of days ago I opened both leading news websites simultaneously. Naturally, I was delighted to see they were dominated by the most important story of our age. Without needing to click anywhere, I was soon reflecting on the important ethical question, ‘is it ok to hate Naz?’, on one site, while I also pondered Naz’s stoic refusal to bite back at Kate Hawkesby’s nasty tweets, on the other.

However, during this enlightenment session, I was distracted by a story that inexplicably made it to the corner of the front page. Intrigued by the picture of an earnest square jawed man called John Kerry, I glanced in and was disappointed to find this ‘story’ contained some trifling nonsense about genocide in Syria. Boring.

The standard of news presentation in this country is generally high, but this creeping trend of mixing trivial geopolitical stories alongside real news is concerning. As though they are somehow of equal importance.

One can only hope that this trend reverses before it’s too late. Keep the real news on the front page, and all that inconsequential fluff in the depths of the ‘World’ section.

After all, there was never any doubt that words can cause significant pain. The defiant schoolyard retort contains its own subtle admission of that fact. Attempting to contrast invisible verbal barbs from the severe physical damage inflicted by rudimentary caveman weapons, betrays the fragility of the utterer’s conviction.

As any target of bullying knows, words can hurt, and the damage may take longer to heal than a bruise or broken bone.

In the internet age, bullies have inescapable reach, and the ability to ply their cowardly trade 24/7. Victims struggle to find any place of solace when relentless tormentors follow them everywhere. Technological advancement has failed to mask humanity’s primitive instinct to demean others in the pursuit of personal self-esteem.

Informed by the results of psychological studies, society is increasingly attuned to the agony caused by hostile words.

Generally, in face-to-face interactions at least, there has been encouraging progress. Elements of verbal harassment once entirely acceptable in schools and workplaces would nowadays result in quick rebuke, or a successful personal grievance lawsuit.

Our society is improving its sensitivity to casual racism, sexism, religious persecution and any other form of discrimination. There is a well-intentioned desire to eliminate all varieties of hurtful speech.

More than ever before, we look towards guidelines and moderation to counter verbal bullying, intimidation and hate speech.

Purging the world, both physical and virtual, of bullying and bigotry is an admirable goal. However, there is a worrying trend toward overreach – fuelled by a hypersensitivity to disagreement, and increasingly overzealous political correctness.

The movement to protect society from hurt feelings is inadvertently spreading – or perhaps being commandeered – to undermine necessary societal functions, such as free speech and healthy debate. Its progressive agenda is becoming stained with regressive elements.

In the face of an increasingly delicate line of political correctness, our society seems to struggle with differentiating between hostile attacksagainstindividualsorgroups,and the genuine criticism of ideasheld by individuals and groups. The former results in bullying and bigotry; the latter is fair debate.

“Let me have my opinion”, is no longer an exclamation against the perils of censorship; it is an affronted shriek that someone is challenging a dearly held belief.

“That offends me” – delivered with incensed shock – is a convenient safety blanket used to smother sincere expressions of disagreement, or to silence controversial opinions.

The outrage generation

This inability to deal with disagreement, criticism and controversial topics is rendering our emerging generations helpless to stand up for themselves, and incapable of differentiating between genuine hate speech and opinions they simply don’t like hearing.

Instead of providing the intellectual tools needed to confront and process difficult conversations, mollycoddling educators, in the name of protecting feelings, are encouraging a submissive reliance on authority figures to act as arbiters.

Universities, once protectors and promoters of free speech, are pandering to fragile students. No doubt created with the best of intentions, ‘safe spaces’ and ‘de-platforming’ have become euphemisms for censorship – silencing individuals because they risk causing offence and hurt feelings.

We see instances of university students acting like outraged children – sticking fingers in their ears, declaring, “I don’t want to hear your view, it offends me”. The skill of listening and responding with a clear counter narrative, is replaced with petulant demands to authority figures to step in to silence the unpopular voices.

There has been a movement in recent years to open our playgrounds up to risk – to stop wrapping our children in cotton wool. The same revolution needs to occur in our attitude towards debate.

Dealing with controversial issues: Race, religion and culture

A society fearful of confronting difficult issues – particularly around race, religion or culture – is one that risks allowing religious and cultural inspired discrimination to thrive.

Merely suggesting that culture or religion is, at times, used as an excuse to justify inherently discriminatory practises, invariably results in allegations of racism, bigotry or cultural insensitivity. These hysterics illustrate the problem our hyper-sensitive culture has with differentiating between the criticism of specific sets of ideas and the wholesale discrimination directed towards a race or culture.

For example, the fashionable term ‘Islamophobia’ is used unjustly to undermine those who criticise the medieval tenets and attitudes associated with some interpretations of Islam.

Likewise, ‘culture’ is seen as a legitimate justification for other forms of discrimination. In New Zealand, some Marae protocols prohibit women speaking during formalities and require females to be seated behind men. This practise is justified on the basis of tradition and culture. It is also clearly sexist.

Accusations of racism were once reserved for instances of actual discrimination based on skin colour, but are now directed at anyone who might dare to challenge regressive, illiberal cultural or religious practises.

Shrieking racism is the most effective way to shut down any debate.

As soon as the accusation leaves an indignant mouth the accused is on the back foot, and must redirect all of their focus on explaining why they are not a bigot. All other issues of substance in the discussion are lost. Mud tends to stick, and an accusation of racism, even when unjustified, is harmful.

Our fear of being tarred with a damaging label leads to uneasiness when any hint of race, religion or culture enters a discussion. The line between fair criticism and genuine racism has become so muddied we often find it is easier to simply shy away from these topics entirely.

Paradoxically, however, politically correct handwringing results in its own perverse form of prejudice. Viewing foreign cultures and religions through a separate lens creates a distinct framework of rules for ‘other’ groups, where the only differentiating features are race, religion or culture.

This curious equivocating leads to absurd outcomes. We see examples of University feminists and LGBTQ+ groups – in a fit of moral confusion – acting as apologists for misogynistic Islamists attempting to silence a female ex-Muslim from speaking.

Although inspired by a genuine desire to avoid hurtful speech and to protect minority groups, these mental gymnastics are forcing otherwise liberal individuals to advocate for positions they are generally diametrically opposed to.

Majiid Nawaz, a liberal Muslim, describes this inexplicable positioning as the bigotry of low expectations. Ideas and practises ordinarily considered unacceptable, are exempt if the perpetrators are a different colour, or follow a foreign religion. We must not apply our rules to them, we must not criticise – after all, it’s just their culture. How patronising. How racist. And how badly we let down the most vulnerable. The liberals, the LGBTQ+, the feminists and the free thinkers – minorities-within-minorities – ostracised by their own ‘in-group’, and betrayed by the society who should be advocating for them.

Space for the bigots

One potential reason we avoid difficult conversations around questions of race, religion and culture is the fear that confronting these issues will give oxygen to bigots. We are concerned that racists will come out of the woodwork and co-opt the conversation, turning it toxic. In fact, I am slightly concerned that might well happen with this article.

However, not only does this mentality set the platform for restricting free speech, it is ultimately counterproductive. Ignoring the issue leaves the conversation space bare and ripe for hi-jacking by genuine bigots.

The backlash is already evident.

Far-right parties are on the rise in Europe, as many voters feel their leaders have failed to adequately address immigration concerns, and the rise of Islamic extremism within their communities.

In the United States, a diverse range of voters are latching on to Donald Trump. They view him as a person cutting through the ‘PC nonsense’. In the absence of a coherent narrative addressing the difficult questions of mass immigration, Trump’s description of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists is, perversely, viewed as refreshing honesty. The failure of serious leaders to effectively address problems with Islamism has provided a genuine bigot the platform to promise a wholesale ban on Muslims entering America – and, in this topsy-turvy world, that is somehow regarded by many as a functional plan.

Because voices like Trump’s are the few speaking freely about religion, race and culture, their prejudiced views more easily become dominant. There is no effective counter-narrative, no sensible middle-ground.

It is important to remain mindful that words can cause suffering – but the answer is not to shut down difficult conversations. By failing to protect free speech, and failing to confront challenging issues relating to race, culture and religion, we are conceding that space to the unhinged populists and bigots.

]]>https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/the-thin-skins/feed/1censorshipalexjhpostThe Season for Demagogueshttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/the-season-for-demagogues/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/the-season-for-demagogues/#respondThu, 03 Mar 2016 06:44:48 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=48More The Season for Demagogues]]>Wildly popular in the 1930s/1940s, demagogue is a resurgent occupation, lately. The term demagogue has many different uses but, in the current climate, usually describes a political populist who is seeking to gain authority by exploiting the fears and prejudices of voters.

This is the kind of politician who rarely describes their vision in terms of opportunities; instead, they prefer to concentrate on demonising minority groups and other outsiders.

The foundation of their campaign is the identification of suitable scapegoats – people and groups to blame for the real or perceived woes of the community. And, currently, demagogues are surging in polls across the Western world.

They are rising from the fringes in Europe, exploiting legitimate fears of terrorism and unfettered immigration, to push their own xenophobic, nationalistic agendas.

The ongoing Republican Presidential candidacy is a surreal display of rival demagogues competing to out do each other in their inflammatory proclamations. The candidates strive to match the tone of their particular brand of fear mongering to the tune of the public’s anxieties.

But there is only one agitator – in a contest brimming with lunatics – successfully reaching deep into the well of America’s fears and frustrations: future President of the United States, Donald Trump.

The media generally wrote Trump off early in his campaign – he was perceived as nothing more than an entertaining sideshow. Journalists were content to broadcast his incendiary statements without trepidation; after all, he was generating significant views and clicks. Still, no one was seriously picking him to resonate with any significant portion of the voting public.

Likewise, the other Republican candidates have also underestimated Trump’s prowess. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were happy to sit back and watch on with glee as Trump savaged Jeb Bush – the early establishment favourite – with schoolyard insults.

When Bush meekly bowed out, Rubio and Cruz continued to view one another as the real competition. They began tripping over themselves to prove their staunch conservative credentials – such as their unwavering commitment to rounding up immigrants, shutting down evil family planning clinics and boldly professing their devotion to the blessed Lord Jesus.

Meanwhile, Trump blustered on – his orange hue glowing ever brighter. The other pretenders are trying in vain to get on Trump’s level of alarming rhetoric. But they are mere amateurs in this brave new world of nebulous policies and incessant browbeating.

Rubio and Cruz foolishly continue to employ some modicum of logic and detail to their policy plans. Trump doesn’t have time for that kind of nonsense – substance is for establishment politicians. Trump isn’t here to be a politician, he is here to make America great again. People who question the lack of detail in his plans are vile, untrustworthy, elitists – he thunders. Trump’s adoring followers lap it all up.

Only recently have the other Republican aspirants started to band together to attack the property magnate, and former reality TV star. But, as Super Tuesday demonstrated – it is likely too little too late.

Despite his astounding success, commentators continue to remark that Trump is nothing more than a stupid bully.

A bully, certainly, but his perceived stupidity is a clever simulation. It takes exceptional skill to perfect the art of populism, as Karl Kraus mused, “The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.”

Trump is convincing large swathes of the American public that he is the answer to all of their problems, and he is doing it without articulating any substantive policy ideas. His entire campaign is a series of rambling, outrageous – but carefully fashioned – commentaries on all the people and groups he believes are holding America back from greatness.

Immigrants, the scapegoat of convenience for demagogues throughout all of human history, are a primary focus for Trump.

He makes sweeping generalisations towards Mexican immigrants (his favoured term for all Latin Americans) – labelling them as criminals, drug dealers and rapists.

Similarly, Trump latches on to a genuine issue of concern – extremist Islam – and casts aside any nuance by declaring that under his watch borders will close to all people of the Muslim faith. Apart from being a hopeless strategy to stop extremists from getting into the country (presumably they do know how to lie) it also alienates Muslims already residing in America.

On the economic front, Trump constantly talks about making America great again and ‘winning’. He doesn’t delve too much into his plans for economic prosperity or where he sees the best opportunities for growth. Instead, he prefers to focus on combatting the nations that are hoodwinking America. His favourite bogeyman in the economic space is China. He talks about China a lot. In fact, according to Trump, the Chinese are the biggest thieves in history .

Lest you thought he was a one trick pony, he has diversified his list of enemies to more than just ethnic groups – he vilifies establishment politicians, feminists, liberals, the elite, Wall Street traders, welfare dependents, the media, and so on. In short, there is someone for every American to point a hateful accusatory finger at.

Does this uncanny ability to understand and connect with voters demonstrate empathy? Of course not. His views are frequently contradictory, but always just vague enough so that almost every average punter, except those he is attacking, is convinced he is on their level. Astonishingly, he has even found some success among Latino Republican voters.

The world’s amusement at the spectacle of a self-promoting blowhard, sticking it to American politicians, has given way to the horrible sinking feeling that President Trump might become a reality.

***********************************************************

New Zealand tends to pick up world trends a little later than most. So, will we ever see the rise of extreme populism here?

Don Brash, a demagogue of mild proportions, was almost successful – using his racially charged Orewa speech, and convenient welfare bashing, as a populist platform for National’s 2004 surge in the polls. Thankfully, he was defeated, and is in exile from the political scene. Although, he does pop up from time to time, stamping his feet and banging a pot, to remind us all that is still around, brooding and seething.

Winston Peter’s is a more enduring populist – he has made a career out of leveraging emotive issues for his own political gain. He is the master of devising unrealistic policies that capture the public’s current sentiment, and which he knows he will never have to deliver.

But, is the New Zealand First leader a demagogue? Doubtful, and if he is, he is certainly a harmless one.

Winston is a likeable rogue who doesn’t even really want power. Apart from a few ill-conceived forays into the establishment, he has perfected the art of just doing enough to hang around the edges as the enduring ‘keep the government honest’ maverick.

He can only maintain this shtick outside of power – if he ever gained control, he would face his worst nightmare: actually having to implement his disparate collection of populist policies.

However, it is the precedent he is setting, which is more concerning. Winston’s usually harmless populist appeals do strike a chord with many New Zealanders, and show that there is some appetite for politics of this kind in New Zealand.

His legacy could well be laying the groundwork for a real demagogue. A megalomaniac who claims to be taking up Winston’s mantle as a counter weight to the established political parties, but one who differs in their resolve – someone who actually craves power and who is willing to say and do anything to achieve their goals.

If Kraus, when describing the followers of a demagogue, was harsh, H.L. Mencken is even more contemptuous: “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”

It seems to be working in America. Could the New Zealand voting public be as susceptible to manipulation by a clever demagogue?

Let’s put aside any potential debate, and assume for a minute that trade liberalisation does indeed benefit our country and contributes to our prosperity.

What would we sacrifice for those gains? What are we willing to turn a blind eye to in the name of economic growth?

If the so-called Islamic State were capable of achieving actual statehood, solidifying their control over large reserves of oil, would it be prudent to seek a trade deal for our own benefit? They might make a good market for our Halal meat industry. How about if the rest of the world embraced this murderous band of religious zealots into the international community?

Most likely your toes curl and you shudder at the very thought of becoming entwined with such an absolute bastion of wickedness.

It is inconceivable that we would engage in economic commerce with a state – essentially legitimatising its existence – where indiscriminate beheadings and public floggings, on questionable charges, are commonplace. A place where profound bigotry is ingrained and only one prevailing narrow interpretation of Islam is permitted; all other religions, or atheism for that matter, are outlawed and there is a real possibility of death awaiting these thought crimes. A state where women are treated, at the very best, as second-class citizens and children are indoctrinated in this way of life to ensure the perpetuation of fanaticism.

Certainly, this is what happens within Islamic State held territories, but the inhumane practises outlined above are routine state sanctioned conduct within Saudi Arabia – the nation that the Islamic State dreams of being if it were ever to achieve its goal of a regional or global caliphate.

When facing questions regarding the human rights policies of other nations, China for example, both National, and Labour before them, suggest we are better positioned to influence and raise our concerns if we are on the inside. Is this really true? How much influence do we gain? How many times have we raised our concerns over the stifling of human rights in China, perhaps a quiet diplomatic whisper here-and-there?

Surely, no politician is so naïve as to think little New Zealand is capable of influencing China, the economic behemoth, into changing its behaviour in any significant way. What do we really think would happen to the quality of our trade deal, which we are now so heavily reliant on, if we ever found the necessity to speak out loudly against abuses occurring within China? Who would be hurting more when the deal begins to unravel?

There is no doubt that our economic reliance on bilateral trade deals restricts our ability to project criticism, and to encourage international pressure for reform, towards our trade partners. We usually need them more than they need us.

I consider myself a realist. I acknowledge we will occasionally need to suck it up and stay quiet on some issues in order to make gains elsewhere. If we refused to trade with every nation that failed to meet our human rights standard, we would isolate ourselves from large swathes of the world’s economy. China and the United States’ – with their record on the death penalty – come to mind. But why deceive ourselves? We conclude these deals for no other reason than the pursuit of economic prosperity. Any talk of gaining influence is merely a sop to ease our conscience.

But surely there must be somewhere where we draw the line, when weighing economic prosperity against our core values?

It is difficult to imagine a nation that characterises the antithesis of liberal Western values more fulsomely than Saudi Arabia.

Really consider for a second the horror of this middle eastern utopia, which has a penal code setting the death penalty for morality ‘crimes’ such as adultery, sodomy and fornication, and for imaginary ‘crimes’ such as witchcraft and sorcery.

What does it say about us if we flippantly remark, “well, every country should be free to govern their own way?”

If we truly believe in the universality of liberal principles, then by all rights Saudi Arabia should be an international pariah, shunned by the West.

Instead, we see US presidents walking hand-and-hand with Saudi Kings. We see the United Nations, in a comprehensive display of its sheer irrelevancy as a force for good, offering this medieval reversion a place on the Human Rights Council. And we see our own Government bending over backwards to entice the archetype for prejudiced Islamic theocracy into a trade deal.

However, don’t fret – we are told in soothing tones – we aren’t completely selling out our own values, we will be better placed to pressure and influence the House of Saud to adopt a more humane regime. Cognitive dissonance is indeed a powerful force.

The United States, in over 50 years of close alliance with Saudi Arabia, has failed to encourage any meaningful human rights reform.

Our Government is utterly deluded if it thinks there is even a slight prospect we will have one iota of positive influence. The realist truth is surely worse – our Government knows it cannot influence the Saudis on human rights; we are only in the trade deal hunt for the economic potential.

If we, and I include the entire West, cannot draw the line here at Saudi Arabia, a nation where human rights abuses are so systematically egregious, then it seems very clear that we are purely moral relativists.

Our professed belief in universal values and human rights is meaningless if we are willing to legitimise the antithesis to those values with our trade policies, and in our failure to condemn the barbarism of Saudi governance.

We should not meekly suggest reform behind closed doors, at select times. We should demand reform loudly and persistently, as a necessary basic condition of entry into the global community.

When did the West lose its spine? Perhaps it has always been this way and I am displaying my idealism.

Our approach to dealing with Saudi Arabia is shameful and an affront to everything we value. Instead of pathetically clamouring for a scrap of economic gain we should be shouting from the rooftops that Saudi Arabia’s behaviour is indistinguishable from the exact evil we are fighting in the Islamic State.

Of course, we might have to wait until an adequate substitute for oil is discovered.

For some, feminism invokes a noble struggle for equality and is a movement for liberation and justice.

For others, ‘feminist’ is an expression of contempt, conjuring up images of deranged shrieking women who spend their spite-filled waking hours railing against the patriarchy and devising ways to emasculate men.

At its most basic, the term feminism simply relates to advocating equal rights for women. In most of the Western world gender equality is not – at least theoretically – a controversial concept.

Of course, there are some deranged types, such as the ‘neo-masculinist’, Daryush Valizadeh, who appear to be genuinely anti-female. Men like this are in the very small minority and their views generally ridiculed.

Most who recoil at the very sound of the word ‘feminism’ would agree, when pressed, that they do believe men and women should have equal political, social and economic rights. By the simplest definition of the word, there are very few in New Zealand who are not feminists.

So where is the hostility towards this label derived? Here are a few non-exhaustive possibilities based on my non-expert observations.

Some men have detected what they perceive to be double standards. For example, the perception of gender bias towards men subjected to domestic abuse, or the discriminatory policies held by some airlines where they will refuse to seat a man next to an unaccompanied minor.

While there are plenty of activists and noise on feminist issues, many men feel that advocates are lacking for males in situations like these.

This may well be true, and these are real concerns facing men, which need to be addressed in our society. But it would be nonsensical for those concerns to be used as an argument against the goal of feminism – equality. It seems trite to say, but advocating for the rights of men need not clash with advocating for the rights of women.

Most men do not feel as though they hold a personal position of privilege in their day-to-day lives (and quite probably, they do not). When they hear or read of women facing discrimination – some of whom appear better off than they are – it can seem faintly out of touch with reality.

Others are put off by the extreme over-the-top nature of some feminists, such as those involved in the ‘Killallmen’ twitter campaign. These rare instances create an impression that feminism equates to anti-man. However, just as it is nonsensical to treat every man boarding an airplane as a potential child molester it is equally absurd to write off all feminists as man-haters due to the extreme actions of a few.

There is a prevailing view among anti-feminists that gender inequality in the west is a relic of the past, rendering the term feminism redundant. Therefore, the reasoning goes, western women should stop complaining.

Anti-feminists point to the severe discrimination faced by females in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia – as if to suggest that modern western women do not know real inequality. After all, privileged western women are allowed to drive cars and are not subjected to genital mutilation, what could they possibly know about discrimination?

There are many women around the world facing horrendous conditions on account of their sex. But this should not be used to trivialise the more subtle discrimination women face in the relative comfort of the west. If we only ever compared ourselves to places with worse conditions, we would never make progress on any issue.

Women in the west continue to face inequality, much of it institutionalised. For example, women in New Zealand still earn less than men for the same work, they are more likely to be subjected to violence in the home, less likely to reach a position of authority and more likely to face harassment at work or on the street.

We can do better. One can be horrified and speak out against barbaric medieval practices like slavery or stoning for adultery, occurring elsewhere, and still take a stand against discrimination on our own doorstep. We do not need to put our own human rights progress on hold until other countries catch up.

The stigma associated with feminism is unfounded. Every reasonable person should want equality for the sexes and every reasonable person should consider themselves a feminist.

]]>https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/the-f-word/feed/0feminismalexjhpostThe problem with our national dialoguehttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/the-problem-with-our-national-dialogue/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/the-problem-with-our-national-dialogue/#respondFri, 12 Feb 2016 10:02:14 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=16More The problem with our national dialogue]]>The forthcoming conclusion of the flag referendum will mark the end of one of the weariest and most dismal periods of national debate in recent times.

The rhetoric surrounding the flag debate has been, on the whole, excruciating.

Case in point, the RSA National President’s attempt to construct the flag referendum as a threat to our heritage. In his view, the beloved national emblem needs safeguarding – presumably from the democratic choice of other nefarious Kiwis – and a change will “consign our heritage to the dustbin”.

Any skilled propagandist would be proud of this fusion of emotional blackmail and the subtle introduction of a potential menace. All, no doubt, designed to engender a sense of urgency in the intended audience, and to ensure no one sitting on the fence sways to the other side, less they betray their own culture and historical legacy.

Given the genuine threats that many members of the RSA have faced in their armed service, it is simultaneously patronising and unnecessarily overstated for the RSA National President to use his platform and this type of language to push his agenda on such a comparatively trivial issue.

Mr Clark, without even a hint of irony, pays tribute to the brave men and women of this nation who have fought for democracy.

Even if you do not agree with the amount of money spent, or the method used to select the alternatives, there is no denying that the people of New Zealand will democratically select the eventual winner.

In the unlikely event that the alternative flag wins the day, does Mr Clark really mean to suggest that our heritage will have been thrown in the dustbin by the majority of New Zealanders?

Alternatively, would it be more sensible and charitable to suggest that we will have simply built on our storied legacy by opening a new chapter in our identity as a proud and independent south pacific nation?

All of this ‘keep-our-flag’ and ‘these colours don’t run’ posturing is symptomatic of the wider problem our society seems to have with rational calm public debate. Why do we seem to struggle so much with the concepts of fair-concession and agreeable divergence of opinion?

The other controversial subject of the moment, the Trans Pacific Partnership, is a perfect example of the tendency for our national dialogue to be swamped by the feverish speculations of the loudest and most unyielding.

When it comes to the TPP, the chief opponents have been uncompromisingly vocal in their doomsday predictions, which – now that the text is out – seem to be largely exaggerated. All that this hysteria has achieved is to obscure genuine points of contention with the deal.

Unhelpfully, on the other side of the fence, the TPP architects seem to go out of their way to be condescending and dismissive. Effort that would have been better spent coming up with a plan to educate and address the public’s concerns.

Somewhere in between these diametric positions are the silent and confused majority, struggling to sift through the noisy partisan rhetoric to develop an educated view.

You only have to look to the United States to see where an ever increasingly polarised national dialogue ends up. Demagoguery, personal attacks and outright bigotry are the accepted norm in the political sphere. As long as you score points against your perceived opponent, anything goes.

This is not to suggest we are even close to those levels of toxicity, but perhaps we would all do well to heed the warning signs.

A healthy democracy thrives best with an engaged and informed public. This ideal becomes ever more difficult as our public narrative drifts towards emotive sensationalism, rather than rational and fair-minded debate.

]]>https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/the-problem-with-our-national-dialogue/feed/0alexjhpostOvercome your evolutionary fear of immigrationhttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/overcome-your-evolutionary-fear-of-immigration/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/overcome-your-evolutionary-fear-of-immigration/#respondFri, 05 Feb 2016 05:54:16 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=13More Overcome your evolutionary fear of immigration]]>It seems to be an instinctive aspect of human nature to distrust outsiders and anyone who doesn’t look like us. This probably made sense from an evolutionary point of view. When our ancient ancestors bumped into a group of strangers, conflict most often ensued. Humans learnt to trust people who looked similar and to be suspicious of those who didn’t. But we have moved on from our cave dwelling past, we are quite capable of rising above our evolutionary dispositions.

The writer of this recent article shares his concerns about immigration. His conclusion: immigration “is not making New Zealand a more pleasant place to live”. Moreover, in a sinister turn of events, it seems that unchecked immigration threatens to impede our children from enjoying the wonderful lifestyle we currently enjoy.

Won’t somebody think of the children!

The writer cites a couple of reasons why immigration could hurt New Zealand.

Firstly, due to rampant immigration, our population is growing ‘rapidly’, in fact the rate of growth is described as ‘astonishing’.

Well, what does the data say? In the short-term, figures from Statistics New Zealand estimate population growth to be approximately 1.4 – 1.8% per year. This is a reasonably high growth rate by some standards, but similar to comparable countries, such as Australia.

In the longer-term, due to a rapidly ageing population, growth is going to slow significantly, to below one percent per year. New Zealand’s immigration policies are hardly letting in floods of migrants and, in any event, we need them.

The baby-boomers are approaching retirement in the near future – heaping a massive burden on our superannuation system.

There will be fewer of the working-age paying taxes to fund the greater cost of retirement income. The Superannuation Fund and other retirement schemes will hopefully provide support. But increasing the number of working age people in the country will also ease the burden. As the writer points out in his anti-immigration piece – the birth rate is only just above replacement level. We need immigrants, especially working-age immigrants.

Secondly, the writer points out that 25% of all New Zealanders were born overseas, and 40% of Aucklanders are not Kiwi born. Auckland is bursting at the seams and apparently – according to the writer – the foreigners are to blame for this imminent rupture.

Admittedly, Auckland does have some problems. Not least of all is the failure of decision makers to ensure infrastructure and housing supply kept up with demand. There is also a wider issue in New Zealand where other parts of the country, for whatever reason, are not viewed as attractive locations for young (and old) workers. Internal migration to Auckland is as much of an issue as immigration.

What was the writers point, again? Oh yes, I think we find the real issue a little further down the page where he informs us: “People naturally feel uncomfortable when they find themselves increasingly surrounded by people who look different and speak a different language”.

There it is, the age-old evolutionary instinct, people who look different to us cannot be trusted.

This begs the question: would it help those naturally uncomfortable feeling Kiwis if the immigrants looked a little more – you know – New Zealandy? (Would that mean accepting only white looking immigrants, or could they look Māori too?).

The concerned writer also reveals – according to him – the public’s anxiety that immigrants don’t integrate well and may not share our values. Now, which values are those again? I didn’t receive the memo outlining New Zealand’s uniform doctrine. One wonders how we Kiwis have managed to end up in debates on a number of issues such as euthanasia, marriage equality, politics and religion when we all share the same values.

Where the writer is surely correct is in his concern that the views he outlines might be perceived as xenophobic.

Instead of succumbing to our base insecurities and fear of outsiders, perhaps we could consider the more positive impact of immigration.

Immigrants provide richness and depth to our culture. Not only do our newest arrivals bring their much-needed skills and work-force participation, they also bring different perspectives and life experiences. Diversity prevents our national dialogue from becoming a mono-view echo chamber. Immigrants also bring a great deal of vibrancy, colour, wonderful food, interesting music and excellent art – just to name a few positive outcomes.

Most new arrivals come here in search of a better life. They want to make a fist of it and enjoy the freedoms Kiwis hold dear. The beauty of a liberal democracy is that it can accommodate different ethnicities, cultures, political views and religions. The only ‘value’ needed to fit into this society is a respect for the principles of liberalism, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion (and non-religion), rule of law, civil rights, democracy and separation of religion from the state. A liberal democracy welcomes different perspectives and beliefs and accepts disagreement and criticism, as long as the fundamental rights of others are respected.

Continued immigration is absolutely vital for New Zealanders to enjoy, and improve, the current standard of living and rich cultural diversity we enjoy. So, welcome to the country all you visitors and new New Zealanders. Enjoy your life wherever you decide to settle down. Bear in mind it doesn’t have to be Auckland. I hope you will embrace the freedoms that this little slice of paradise has to offer.

]]>https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/overcome-your-evolutionary-fear-of-immigration/feed/0alexjhpostDying on our termshttps://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/dying-on-our-terms/
https://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/dying-on-our-terms/#respondTue, 26 Jan 2016 07:31:03 +0000http://alexjhpost.wordpress.com/?p=10More Dying on our terms]]>Over the course of our living days most of us seek out autonomy and we find self-worth in the freedom to make our own choices. It is one of the hallmarks of life in a liberal democracy: for better or worse, generally, we get to decide how we will live, and what we will do with our lives.

The one sure thing in this life, sadly, is its inevitable end. Regrettably, the freedom we enjoy during life is not currently afforded to us when facing death. Those facing terminal illness and unbearable suffering do not get to choose when it will end.

Many opponents to euthanasia make the point that we have world class palliative care specialists in New Zealand. Indeed we do, and we are very fortunate that this is the case. These same opponents maintain that there can be dignity in a death where pain is carefully managed. Families can spend final cherished hours with their loved one.

I don’t dare to disagree with such claims.

I’ve seen first-hand how such loving and professional care can aid dignity in passing. My grandmother, after battling cancer, passed in relative comfort thanks to exceptional palliative care. Family members were able to spend treasured final moments with her.

However, our access to quality palliative care does not guarantee everyone comfort and dignity, nor does it change the fact that in facing death we are deprived of an indispensable element of dignity we enjoy in life – the freedom to choose.

We may well choose to persevere to our last breath and “not go gentle into that good night”. But, we also deserve, and are justified in demanding, the right to end our pain and suffering on our own terms. By criminalising assisted dying the law currently denies this freedom. The unavoidable result of this inhumane legal setting is that many are forced to suffer against their will.

David Seymour states: “The motivation for this Bill is compassion. It allows people who so choose and are eligible under this Bill to end their life in peace and dignity, surrounded by loved ones“.

I sincerely hope our law makers will be compassionate and exercise their vote of conscience in favour of this Bill – extending to us, when the time comes to face death, the dignity of choice we so dearly treasure in life.